Just the fact that Ferrari signed Kimi one year till, is good enough "evidence" for some folks that it was what Vettel demanded and was granted.

When Vettel came to RBR and started winning, folks were spilling their brains for 4 years how Webber was kept as No2 on the "golden boy's" demand. But Vettel had nothing to do with it, Webber was signing his year-to-year contracts on his own, he had his Mateschitz personal relationship anyway, he was wanted by the team, and he left on his own accord too (but then the folks jumped on Vettel's back for virtually kicking Mark out of RBR and F1 all together with that "multi", this time about).

Then the folks were spilling their brains how Vettel vetoed Kimi and picked Ricciardo. Vettel had no saying there either, the RBR driver program of Helmut Marko worked its way as always.

Then he came to Ferrari, Kimi was there. And now the same narrative keeps on... Vettel is masterminding his No2 teammate that is otherwise useless for the team. And that in the team that is famed for their strict "The team first, not a driver" policy.

Never known Ferrari to be famed for team first policy. Always be known for driver first policy to me.

Then you know next to nothing about Ferrari history. Perhaps you should "hit the books"

Back when the Old Man still ran things, it really was Ferrari first and foremost, and the driver be damned. Unfortunately, a lot of fans (even some 'older' ones now, its been 20 years) only think of Ferrari in Di Montezemolo and Todt's mould, putting Schumacher at the fore (to the obvious benefit of Ferrari, of course) and thus its a pretty prominent viewpoint that Ferrari are set in the ways of a #1 driver policy. Since Schumacher I don't think it has been that clear cut, but I think the benefit of doing things that way (it was a barren spell for a long time pre-Schumacher) are still fresh in the thinking at Maranello. Truth told, it works.

I agree with pretty much what you are saying here, though, I don't think that it was a definitive #1 even for Schumi, I do believe that had one of his teammates come out and taken it to him from the start of the season, that Ferrari would have played things differently. The issue was... there was no one close to Schumi... Rubens was a much better driver than many of today's fans realize, or are wont to admit, it was both his good fortune and bad luck to be teamed with Schumi. Good in that he got to drive one of the top cars, if not the top car, for many years... got to race at or near the front nearly every race and was a critical part of a championship team. Bad luck in that he was not a match for Schumacher, but then neither was any one else.

I feel that there was some misunderstanding of what "team comes first" policy is to mean when "#1" driver policy was brought in to object such. And as you indicated here, it is not the particular driver who would impose that policy on the team and designate himself. But the team, picking out the one who is impressing more and is the front horse to put into the race against the concurrence horse. It is the team's policy, the team managing it... because that is in the team's interest (and they sacrifice one of the drivers for that, just see).

Alonso was. It didn't usually matter, but a few times (Spain being the first one I can remember) we saw Alonso get the favored strategy even when he wasn't ahead.

Now, that's vague as vague can possibly go. In the situation where it does not matter (no WDC title contenders), that would be a mindless decision to make one of them be No2 to another one.

How so? One of the drivers needs to set the direction of setup and development for the car, and it makes sense to prioritize (although not to the exclusion of all else) the strategy of the quicker driver.

When I see things like 'that would be a mindless decision to make one of them be No2 to another one', I think people are really fundamentally overstating what a #2 driver is. Just because one driver is lower in priority than the other does not mean he's 'not allowed to beat the #1' or any of that hyperbole. It just means they're focusing on the other driver.

Case in point: Alonso is obviously the #1 driver at McLaren. Is Stoffel allowed to beat him? Of course, if he can. But Alonso is the one they look to primarily for input and feedback, and if they have to choose between the two in a race (assuming all else being equal) they'll choose in favor of Alonso. But that doesn't mean they're somehow crippling Vandoorne, it just means they're prioritizing the quicker driver.

Alonso was. It didn't usually matter, but a few times (Spain being the first one I can remember) we saw Alonso get the favored strategy even when he wasn't ahead.

Now, that's vague as vague can possibly go. In the situation where it does not matter (no WDC title contenders), that would be a mindless decision to make one of them be No2 to another one.

How so? One of the drivers needs to set the direction of setup and development for the car, and it makes sense to prioritize (although not to the exclusion of all else) the strategy of the quicker driver.

When I see things like 'that would be a mindless decision to make one of them be No2 to another one', I think people are really fundamentally overstating what a #2 driver is. Just because one driver is lower in priority than the other does not mean he's 'not allowed to beat the #1' or any of that hyperbole. It just means they're focusing on the other driver.

Case in point: Alonso is obviously the #1 driver at McLaren. Is Stoffel allowed to beat him? Of course, if he can. But Alonso is the one they look to primarily for input and feedback, and if they have to choose between the two in a race (assuming all else being equal) they'll choose in favor of Alonso. But that doesn't mean they're somehow crippling Vandoorne, it just means they're prioritizing the quicker driver.

Well, then that is your view of what "No1 and No2" driver policy means. The forum's general understanding, as far as I know it, it means in the first hand that indeed no free racing between the two takes place, no competition allowed, and TOs are in place that favour No1 against No2, and indeed crippling the other driver's fight for WDC points in the favour of the designated No1 driver.

IMO, F1 fans do not really bother about whom the team values more and pays more money for and looks primarily for input and feedback, when they debate "No1 - No2" policies. But what happens there out on the track on the racing day and whether both drivers are fairly treated and allowed to race each other for the position and points, or not.

Just the fact that Ferrari signed Kimi one year till, is good enough "evidence" for some folks that it was what Vettel demanded and was granted.

When Vettel came to RBR and started winning, folks were spilling their brains for 4 years how Webber was kept as No2 on the "golden boy's" demand. But Vettel had nothing to do with it, Webber was signing his year-to-year contracts on his own, he had his Mateschitz personal relationship anyway, he was wanted by the team, and he left on his own accord too (but then the folks jumped on Vettel's back for virtually kicking Mark out of RBR and F1 all together with that "multi", this time about).

Then the folks were spilling their brains how Vettel vetoed Kimi and picked Ricciardo. Vettel had no saying there either, the RBR driver program of Helmut Marko worked its way as always.

Then he came to Ferrari, Kimi was there. And now the same narrative keeps on... Vettel is masterminding his No2 teammate that is otherwise useless for the team. And that in the team that is famed for their strict "The team first, not a driver" policy.

Never known Ferrari to be famed for team first policy. Always be known for driver first policy to me.

Then you know next to nothing about Ferrari history. Perhaps you should "hit the books"

Back when the Old Man still ran things, it really was Ferrari first and foremost, and the driver be damned. Unfortunately, a lot of fans (even some 'older' ones now, its been 20 years) only think of Ferrari in Di Montezemolo and Todt's mould, putting Schumacher at the fore (to the obvious benefit of Ferrari, of course) and thus its a pretty prominent viewpoint that Ferrari are set in the ways of a #1 driver policy. Since Schumacher I don't think it has been that clear cut, but I think the benefit of doing things that way (it was a barren spell for a long time pre-Schumacher) are still fresh in the thinking at Maranello. Truth told, it works.

I agree with pretty much what you are saying here, though, I don't think that it was a definitive #1 even for Schumi, I do believe that had one of his teammates come out and taken it to him from the start of the season, that Ferrari would have played things differently. The issue was... there was no one close to Schumi... Rubens was a much better driver than many of today's fans realize, or are wont to admit, it was both his good fortune and bad luck to be teamed with Schumi. Good in that he got to drive one of the top cars, if not the top car, for many years... got to race at or near the front nearly every race and was a critical part of a championship team. Bad luck in that he was not a match for Schumacher, but then neither was any one else.

When Eddie Irvine joined Ferrari he out qualified Schumacher at the first race, in response to this Schumacher prevented Irvine from testing for the rest of the season, this is when F1 had unlimited testing, these are the words of Irvine himself.

Never known Ferrari to be famed for team first policy. Always be known for driver first policy to me.

Then you know next to nothing about Ferrari history. Perhaps you should "hit the books"

Back when the Old Man still ran things, it really was Ferrari first and foremost, and the driver be damned. Unfortunately, a lot of fans (even some 'older' ones now, its been 20 years) only think of Ferrari in Di Montezemolo and Todt's mould, putting Schumacher at the fore (to the obvious benefit of Ferrari, of course) and thus its a pretty prominent viewpoint that Ferrari are set in the ways of a #1 driver policy. Since Schumacher I don't think it has been that clear cut, but I think the benefit of doing things that way (it was a barren spell for a long time pre-Schumacher) are still fresh in the thinking at Maranello. Truth told, it works.

I agree with pretty much what you are saying here, though, I don't think that it was a definitive #1 even for Schumi, I do believe that had one of his teammates come out and taken it to him from the start of the season, that Ferrari would have played things differently. The issue was... there was no one close to Schumi... Rubens was a much better driver than many of today's fans realize, or are wont to admit, it was both his good fortune and bad luck to be teamed with Schumi. Good in that he got to drive one of the top cars, if not the top car, for many years... got to race at or near the front nearly every race and was a critical part of a championship team. Bad luck in that he was not a match for Schumacher, but then neither was any one else.

I feel that there was some misunderstanding of what "team comes first" policy is to mean when "#1" driver policy was brought in to object such. And as you indicated here, it is not the particular driver who would impose that policy on the team and designate himself. But the team, picking out the one who is impressing more and is the front horse to put into the race against the concurrence horse. It is the team's policy, the team managing it... because that is in the team's interest (and they sacrifice one of the drivers for that, just see).

I feel that there was some misunderstanding of what "team comes first" policy is to mean when "#1" driver policy was brought in to object such. And as you indicated here, it is not the particular driver who would impose that policy on the team and designate himself. But the team, picking out the one who is impressing more and is the front horse to put into the race against the concurrence horse. It is the team's policy, the team managing it... because that is in the team's interest (and they sacrifice one of the drivers for that, just see).

When Eddie Irvine joined Ferrari he out qualified Schumacher at the first race, in response to this Schumacher prevented Irvine from testing for the rest of the season, this is when F1 had unlimited testing, these are the words of Irvine himself.

I have attempted to find collaboration for this claim, and the only site that I found that backed it up was anti-michael-schumacher.com. If you have a better source that confirm's Irvine claim that he was not allowed to practice because he beat Schumi in qualifying at the first race, I would love to see them. Funny that there are not dozens of articles on-line about it if it came down the way that you say it did, wouldn't you say?

When Eddie Irvine joined Ferrari he out qualified Schumacher at the first race, in response to this Schumacher prevented Irvine from testing for the rest of the season, this is when F1 had unlimited testing, these are the words of Irvine himself.

I have attempted to find collaboration for this claim, and the only site that I found that backed it up was anti-michael-schumacher.com. If you have a better source that confirm's Irvine claim that he was not allowed to practice because he beat Schumi in qualifying at the first race, I would love to see them. Funny that there are not dozens of articles on-line about it if it came down the way that you say it did, wouldn't you say?

Just the fact that Ferrari signed Kimi one year till, is good enough "evidence" for some folks that it was what Vettel demanded and was granted.

When Vettel came to RBR and started winning, folks were spilling their brains for 4 years how Webber was kept as No2 on the "golden boy's" demand. But Vettel had nothing to do with it, Webber was signing his year-to-year contracts on his own, he had his Mateschitz personal relationship anyway, he was wanted by the team, and he left on his own accord too (but then the folks jumped on Vettel's back for virtually kicking Mark out of RBR and F1 all together with that "multi", this time about).

Then the folks were spilling their brains how Vettel vetoed Kimi and picked Ricciardo. Vettel had no saying there either, the RBR driver program of Helmut Marko worked its way as always.

Then he came to Ferrari, Kimi was there. And now the same narrative keeps on... Vettel is masterminding his No2 teammate that is otherwise useless for the team. And that in the team that is famed for their strict "The team first, not a driver" policy.

Never known Ferrari to be famed for team first policy. Always be known for driver first policy to me.

Then you know next to nothing about Ferrari history. Perhaps you should "hit the books"

Back when the Old Man still ran things, it really was Ferrari first and foremost, and the driver be damned. Unfortunately, a lot of fans (even some 'older' ones now, its been 20 years) only think of Ferrari in Di Montezemolo and Todt's mould, putting Schumacher at the fore (to the obvious benefit of Ferrari, of course) and thus its a pretty prominent viewpoint that Ferrari are set in the ways of a #1 driver policy. Since Schumacher I don't think it has been that clear cut, but I think the benefit of doing things that way (it was a barren spell for a long time pre-Schumacher) are still fresh in the thinking at Maranello. Truth told, it works.

A bit pedantic, but I kind of disagree with this. Montezemolo brought Schumacher-Todt-Brawn-etc. to Ferrari in order to bring the crown back to Maranello. But he then spent the last few years scheming how to overthrow them when they became the dream team and "stole the glory". We all know how Monti effectively forced Schumacher's retirement. True, it wasn't exactly team above all and driver be damned; it was more like an ego power trip. But the team didn't have a problem to sacrifice their nr.1 star when they felt he was becoming bigger than the team.

When I see things like 'that would be a mindless decision to make one of them be No2 to another one', I think people are really fundamentally overstating what a #2 driver is. Just because one driver is lower in priority than the other does not mean he's 'not allowed to beat the #1' or any of that hyperbole. It just means they're focusing on the other driver.

Case in point: Alonso is obviously the #1 driver at McLaren. Is Stoffel allowed to beat him? Of course, if he can. But Alonso is the one they look to primarily for input and feedback, and if they have to choose between the two in a race (assuming all else being equal) they'll choose in favor of Alonso. But that doesn't mean they're somehow crippling Vandoorne, it just means they're prioritizing the quicker driver.

Well, then that is your view of what "No1 and No2" driver policy means. The forum's general understanding, as far as I know it, it means in the first hand that indeed no free racing between the two takes place, no competition allowed, and TOs are in place that favour No1 against No2, and indeed crippling the other driver's fight for WDC points in the favour of the designated No1 driver.

IMO, F1 fans do not really bother about whom the team values more and pays more money for and looks primarily for input and feedback, when they debate "No1 - No2" policies. But what happens there out on the track on the racing day and whether both drivers are fairly treated and allowed to race each other for the position and points, or not.

Well, you're obviously right that that's how people use the terms here. I just think that's only one possible form of a #1 / #2 system, and you can have a #1 driver without imposing any such draconian measures.

When I see things like 'that would be a mindless decision to make one of them be No2 to another one', I think people are really fundamentally overstating what a #2 driver is. Just because one driver is lower in priority than the other does not mean he's 'not allowed to beat the #1' or any of that hyperbole. It just means they're focusing on the other driver.

Case in point: Alonso is obviously the #1 driver at McLaren. Is Stoffel allowed to beat him? Of course, if he can. But Alonso is the one they look to primarily for input and feedback, and if they have to choose between the two in a race (assuming all else being equal) they'll choose in favor of Alonso. But that doesn't mean they're somehow crippling Vandoorne, it just means they're prioritizing the quicker driver.

Well, then that is your view of what "No1 and No2" driver policy means. The forum's general understanding, as far as I know it, it means in the first hand that indeed no free racing between the two takes place, no competition allowed, and TOs are in place that favour No1 against No2, and indeed crippling the other driver's fight for WDC points in the favour of the designated No1 driver.

IMO, F1 fans do not really bother about whom the team values more and pays more money for and looks primarily for input and feedback, when they debate "No1 - No2" policies. But what happens there out on the track on the racing day and whether both drivers are fairly treated and allowed to race each other for the position and points, or not.

Well, you're obviously right that that's how people use the terms here. I just think that's only one possible form of a #1 / #2 system, and you can have a #1 driver without imposing any such draconian measures.

The term "#1 / #2 system" itself does not mean just anything but that what people attribute to it. Sure, it can have different kinds of possible forms, as you say, but if to have a discussion then people have to agree what particular form that is. Merc signed Bottas, with no single win in his F1 career, on a 1-year trial, solving their emergency situation of having to fill in that other vacant seat. There is no discussion of who and what Bottas is in the team compared to Hamilton. But then you go out and state that Mercedes got #1 / #2 drivers policy from day 1 and that Hamilton is, of course, the #1 driver... without explaining what you mean with it... good luck.

When Eddie Irvine joined Ferrari he out qualified Schumacher at the first race, in response to this Schumacher prevented Irvine from testing for the rest of the season, this is when F1 had unlimited testing, these are the words of Irvine himself.

I'm calling bullsh*t on this one seeing as in Sky's legends of F1 series Irvine was very critical of Michael's ability to develop a car.

The term "#1 / #2 system" itself does not mean just anything but that what people attribute to it. Sure, it can have different kinds of possible forms, as you say, but if to have a discussion then people have to agree what particular form that is. Merc signed Bottas, with no single win in his F1 career, on a 1-year trial, solving their emergency situation of having to fill in that other vacant seat. There is no discussion of who and what Bottas is in the team compared to Hamilton. But then you go out and state that Mercedes got #1 / #2 drivers policy from day 1 and that Hamilton is, of course, the #1 driver... without explaining what you mean with it... good luck.

I looked back through the thread to see if I could find where I said Bottas was a #2 from day one, and I can't. So I don't think I actually said that.

But if you think Mercedes was considering a driver who is a 3-time WDC and already an all-time great to be at the same level as a midfielder who'd never won a race or set a pole position, I have my doubts. I don't believe Mercedes has what you're referring to as a #1 / #2 policy, because you seem to think it refers exclusively to an arrangement where the #2 is not allowed to challenge the #1. But I do very much believe Hamilton is considered the lead driver at Mercedes, and if there is any question of strategy, development path, etc. it will be decided in his favor.

Lewis is the more experienced, more marketable, more successful, faster and better-placed driver. Why on earth wouldn't he be #1?

The term "#1 / #2 system" itself does not mean just anything but that what people attribute to it. Sure, it can have different kinds of possible forms, as you say, but if to have a discussion then people have to agree what particular form that is. Merc signed Bottas, with no single win in his F1 career, on a 1-year trial, solving their emergency situation of having to fill in that other vacant seat. There is no discussion of who and what Bottas is in the team compared to Hamilton. But then you go out and state that Mercedes got #1 / #2 drivers policy from day 1 and that Hamilton is, of course, the #1 driver... without explaining what you mean with it... good luck.

I looked back through the thread to see if I could find where I said Bottas was a #2 from day one, and I can't. So I don't think I actually said that.

But if you think Mercedes was considering a driver who is a 3-time WDC and already an all-time great to be at the same level as a midfielder who'd never won a race or set a pole position, I have my doubts. I don't believe Mercedes has what you're referring to as a #1 / #2 policy, because you seem to think it refers exclusively to an arrangement where the #2 is not allowed to challenge the #1. But I do very much believe Hamilton is considered the lead driver at Mercedes, and if there is any question of strategy, development path, etc. it will be decided in his favor.

Lewis is the more experienced, more marketable, more successful, faster and better-placed driver. Why on earth wouldn't he be #1?

Oh, this "but then you go out and state..." was hypothetical, I thought it should had been obvious from its ending "good luck" (with it)... if you go out and state Lewis is No1 (which makes Bottas No2 by default, no?) but you don't clarify your understanding of the term to people. To them, it perhaps means something else (as we agreed on already?).

We are actually not disagreeing, just trying to get on the same page with the meanings of terms. In this very post you are interchangeably using 2 terms for Lewis in Mercedes: the lead driver, the #1 driver. It may not mean the same to many people, indeed.

I am fine with it. Yes, Alonso was #1 driver in Alonso - Kimi, like Hamilton is #1 driver in Hamilton - Bottas, like Vettel is #1 in Vettel - Kimi. Gotcha.

When Eddie Irvine joined Ferrari he out qualified Schumacher at the first race, in response to this Schumacher prevented Irvine from testing for the rest of the season, this is when F1 had unlimited testing, these are the words of Irvine himself.

I'm calling bullsh*t on this one seeing as in Sky's legends of F1 series Irvine was very critical of Michael's ability to develop a car.

Yeap. You can almost change the bold sentence into "these are the writings of pokerman himself"!

When Eddie Irvine joined Ferrari he out qualified Schumacher at the first race, in response to this Schumacher prevented Irvine from testing for the rest of the season, this is when F1 had unlimited testing, these are the words of Irvine himself.

I'm calling bullsh*t on this one seeing as in Sky's legends of F1 series Irvine was very critical of Michael's ability to develop a car.

Yeap. You can almost change the bold sentence into "these are the writings of pokerman himself"!

I will endeavor to find the interview, it was a series of interviews he did with I believe an Austrian company, there's about 22 of them so it may take some time.

Edit: I found the interviews, they are called a drink with Eddie Irvine.

OK... so Irvine said it, however, is there any colaboration of his comment. As I said earlier... if it were true, how is that the only time we hear about it is so much later and from only one source (perhaps 1.5 if you want to accept anti.michael.schumacher.com's implication of something unfair by Schumi. Would it not make sense that among all of these knowledgeable fans in this forum, no one apparently than you and an anti-Schumi site knew about it? Why wouldn't there be hell raised to high heaven over it, and what changed and when to the point that Irvine later says the did most of the testing? Which story, if either, are we to believe?

Personally, I have very serious doubts that a Michael Schumacher, who had yet to even win one WDC for Ferrari after several years, would have the power to prevent Irvine from testing the car for a whole year just because he got beat in the first qualifying? Seriously, do we believe that Schumi was that lacking in confidence? That afraid of a journeyman driver named Irvine? It is a lot to be asked to believe.

OK... so Irvine said it, however, is there any colaboration of his comment. As I said earlier... if it were true, how is that the only time we hear about it is so much later and from only one source (perhaps 1.5 if you want to accept anti.michael.schumacher.com's implication of something unfair by Schumi. Would it not make sense that among all of these knowledgeable fans in this forum, no one apparently than you and an anti-Schumi site knew about it? Why wouldn't there be hell raised to high heaven over it, and what changed and when to the point that Irvine later says the did most of the testing? Which story, if either, are we to believe?

Personally, I have very serious doubts that a Michael Schumacher, who had yet to even win one WDC for Ferrari after several years, would have the power to prevent Irvine from testing the car for a whole year just because he got beat in the first qualifying? Seriously, do we believe that Schumi was that lacking in confidence? That afraid of a journeyman driver named Irvine? It is a lot to be asked to believe.

Why would an Austrian (Germanic) site be anti-Schumacher, also so what Irvine said has to be collaborated by Ferrari otherwise it isn't true?

Seems you don't hear a lot of things and when you hear them they automatically get dismissed as lies if it first concerns Ferrari and secondly it seems when it concerns Schumacher.

You dismiss Irvine as a journeyman driver but would Schumacher have initially seen him like that after being out qualified by him first time out?

If Schumacher was so confident why the games with Rosberg, we all know the number game he played with Rosberg from day 1, and then another journeyman driver Johnny Herbert claimed that after his first test with Schumacher he was 0.5s quicker so Schumacher banned him for seeing his telemetry whilst he still looked at Herbert's telemetry, another lie I guess?

OK... so Irvine said it, however, is there any colaboration of his comment. As I said earlier... if it were true, how is that the only time we hear about it is so much later and from only one source (perhaps 1.5 if you want to accept anti.michael.schumacher.com's implication of something unfair by Schumi. Would it not make sense that among all of these knowledgeable fans in this forum, no one apparently than you and an anti-Schumi site knew about it? Why wouldn't there be hell raised to high heaven over it, and what changed and when to the point that Irvine later says the did most of the testing? Which story, if either, are we to believe?

Personally, I have very serious doubts that a Michael Schumacher, who had yet to even win one WDC for Ferrari after several years, would have the power to prevent Irvine from testing the car for a whole year just because he got beat in the first qualifying? Seriously, do we believe that Schumi was that lacking in confidence? That afraid of a journeyman driver named Irvine? It is a lot to be asked to believe.

Why would an Austrian (Germanic) site be anti-Schumacher, also so what Irvine said has to be collaborated by Ferrari otherwise it isn't true?A site called anti-michael-schumacher.com, yes, I would say that is anti-schumacher. That is the only other site I could find that seemed to echo what Irvine said, and one would expect them to do so would you not.

Seems you don't hear a lot of things and when you hear them they automatically get dismissed as lies if it first concerns Ferrari and secondly it seems when it concerns Schumacher....*laffin*. Perhaps you should invest in a mirror, poker.. I thought you were painting a "self-portrait" with that post... just substitute Mercedes and Hamilton, and it fits you to a tee. I would however, point out, that virtually NOBODY responding thus far in this thread, pro-Schumi or anti-Schumi, seem to have heard of this story, so I guess I can take solace in my unknowing. I would like to point out also that I was unable to find any other collaborations of the story after looking through 3-4 pages of google searching on the story as you presented it. Would you not think that if it happened they way Irvine says, that it would have been BIG news, really BIG news. Ferrari couldn't have covered it up, so I do indeed find it curious.

You dismiss Irvine as a journeyman driver but would Schumacher have initially seen him like that after being out qualified by him first time out?Would a 2x WDC, a man who had bested Senna several times be that uptight about Irvine??? Indeed, I would suggest that he was not rattled by being out qualified the first race of the season... AND, I repeat that I serious doubt that even Michael Schumacher, yet to have won a WDC with Ferrari would have the kind of clout to "bench" Irvine for the rest of the season testings even in the "honeymoon" period of his first years with the team'. ALSO, you have yet to address the post earlier where it seems as though Irvine said that he did MOST of the testing, most of the tire tests and most of the chassis tests, yet commented about how fast Schumi was when he got in the car. Let me ask you, does it really make sense that Ferrari would give in to Schumacher after one qualifying session?

If Schumacher was so confident why the games with Rosberg, we all know the number game he played with Rosberg from day 1, and then another journeyman driver Johnny Herbert claimed that after his first test with Schumacher he was 0.5s quicker so Schumacher banned him for seeing his telemetry whilst he still looked at Herbert's telemetry, another lie I guess?My god, poker... you really like to pull out the crap don't you. As a fan of one who may be one of the best I have ever seen at playing "games" with other drivers, I would think you would have admired Schumi for doing it. Why is Lewis constantly playing games with drivers? Are you saying that Hamilton lacks confidence as well? So what if Schumi played games with Rosberg.. damn his hide for demanding Rosberg's number... if indeed he did it. a gentlemanly act? Not really, but what is your point? Do you think that is the same as blocking his teammate from testing for the whole year? Because he did one thing, it is proof of the other? Perhaps Schumi did want Herbert banned from looking at his telemetry, I can picture that. BTW, have we seen a request of that nature by any other very recent WDC? Again, it is not sporting if indeed that is the way it went down, but the failure is not all Schumi's, most of it would be on Benetton for allowing it, if they did, as it was their team, not Schumacher's.

poker, if you want to believe every negative thing you can find.. real or not, on Schumacher, then do so.. obviously no one is going to stop you. Schumi was far from an angel, I freely admit it. I do, however, think that there have been times when he was perhaps not as deserving of some of the accusations he seemed to draw to himself, but that is what happens when you get yourself on the "radar" so to speak. And part of the price to be paid is that someone will always bring it up at some point, in some discussion, in the future and won't let it "die". Lewis and Vettel will both have to deal with that for many years to come... tis the way it is.

Ok, but there he is simply confirming that MS was not a fairest kind of a sportsman, as response to what Rosberg said about him that MS was playing games all over in Mercedes. But at the same time he is also giving his understanding why such would take place - "In the motor racing your teammate is your biggest enemy." Nothing new either about that or about MS.

When Eddie Irvine joined Ferrari he out qualified Schumacher at the first race, in response to this Schumacher prevented Irvine from testing for the rest of the season, this is when F1 had unlimited testing, these are the words of Irvine himself.

I'm calling bullsh*t on this one seeing as in Sky's legends of F1 series Irvine was very critical of Michael's ability to develop a car.

Yeap. You can almost change the bold sentence into "these are the writings of pokerman himself"!

I will endeavor to find the interview, it was a series of interviews he did with I believe an Austrian company, there's about 22 of them so it may take some time.

Edit: I found the interviews, they are called a drink with Eddie Irvine.

Appreciated, even though I don't agree with it. At least you claimed something and did back it up, it is something that people omit often.

OK... so Irvine said it, however, is there any colaboration of his comment. As I said earlier... if it were true, how is that the only time we hear about it is so much later and from only one source (perhaps 1.5 if you want to accept anti.michael.schumacher.com's implication of something unfair by Schumi. Would it not make sense that among all of these knowledgeable fans in this forum, no one apparently than you and an anti-Schumi site knew about it? Why wouldn't there be hell raised to high heaven over it, and what changed and when to the point that Irvine later says the did most of the testing? Which story, if either, are we to believe?

Personally, I have very serious doubts that a Michael Schumacher, who had yet to even win one WDC for Ferrari after several years, would have the power to prevent Irvine from testing the car for a whole year just because he got beat in the first qualifying? Seriously, do we believe that Schumi was that lacking in confidence? That afraid of a journeyman driver named Irvine? It is a lot to be asked to believe.

There's some unfortunate silliness going on in this thread. The arguments have been endlessly labyrinthine and circular. I've been watching it and it's now time to put it to rest.

Michael WAS favoured by Ferrari. If you or anyone finds that difficult to understand or accept, perhaps you might look at page 37 of TOTAL COMPETITION by Ross Brawn and Adam Parr. Ross would know, possibly even more so than some of the armchair experts here.

Secondly, Ross's philosophy was always to favour the faster driver, so the rusted on Schumacher disciples need no take umbrage; he WAS a fast driver.

OK... so Irvine said it, however, is there any colaboration of his comment. As I said earlier... if it were true, how is that the only time we hear about it is so much later and from only one source (perhaps 1.5 if you want to accept anti.michael.schumacher.com's implication of something unfair by Schumi. Would it not make sense that among all of these knowledgeable fans in this forum, no one apparently than you and an anti-Schumi site knew about it? Why wouldn't there be hell raised to high heaven over it, and what changed and when to the point that Irvine later says the did most of the testing? Which story, if either, are we to believe?

Personally, I have very serious doubts that a Michael Schumacher, who had yet to even win one WDC for Ferrari after several years, would have the power to prevent Irvine from testing the car for a whole year just because he got beat in the first qualifying? Seriously, do we believe that Schumi was that lacking in confidence? That afraid of a journeyman driver named Irvine? It is a lot to be asked to believe.

There's some unfortunate silliness going on in this thread. The arguments have been endlessly labyrinthine and circular. I've been watching it and it's now time to put it to rest.

Michael WAS favoured by Ferrari. If you or anyone finds that difficult to understand or accept, perhaps you might look at page 37 of TOTAL COMPETITION by Ross Brawn and Adam Parr. Ross would know, possibly even more so than some of the armchair experts here.

Secondly, Ross's philosophy was always to favour the faster driver, so the rusted on Schumacher disciples need no take umbrage; he WAS a fast driver.

Unfortunately, your post doesn't put it to rest because the current discussion is about a claim that Schumacher prevented Irvine from doing any testing. Whether he was favoured or not may be germane, but certainly not conclusive.

I can't in fact see any relevance between your post and the one you were replying to?

Ok, but there he is simply confirming that MS was not a fairest kind of a sportsman, as response to what Rosberg said about him that MS was playing games all over in Mercedes. But at the same time he is also giving his understanding why such would take place - "In the motor racing your teammate is your biggest enemy." Nothing new either about that or about MS.

What this has to do with anything beyond that?

It's just a back ground to things that Schumacher was prepared to do to gain any kind of superiority over his teammates.

When Eddie Irvine joined Ferrari he out qualified Schumacher at the first race, in response to this Schumacher prevented Irvine from testing for the rest of the season, this is when F1 had unlimited testing, these are the words of Irvine himself.

I'm calling bullsh*t on this one seeing as in Sky's legends of F1 series Irvine was very critical of Michael's ability to develop a car.

Yeap. You can almost change the bold sentence into "these are the writings of pokerman himself"!

I will endeavor to find the interview, it was a series of interviews he did with I believe an Austrian company, there's about 22 of them so it may take some time.

Edit: I found the interviews, they are called a drink with Eddie Irvine.

Appreciated, even though I don't agree with it. At least you claimed something and did back it up, it is something that people omit often.

Well I must admit there are quite a few things I say I can't back up, I simply can't find the source, but everything I say is simply things I've read or seen, sometimes it's quite frustrating.

OK... so Irvine said it, however, is there any colaboration of his comment. As I said earlier... if it were true, how is that the only time we hear about it is so much later and from only one source (perhaps 1.5 if you want to accept anti.michael.schumacher.com's implication of something unfair by Schumi. Would it not make sense that among all of these knowledgeable fans in this forum, no one apparently than you and an anti-Schumi site knew about it? Why wouldn't there be hell raised to high heaven over it, and what changed and when to the point that Irvine later says the did most of the testing? Which story, if either, are we to believe?

Personally, I have very serious doubts that a Michael Schumacher, who had yet to even win one WDC for Ferrari after several years, would have the power to prevent Irvine from testing the car for a whole year just because he got beat in the first qualifying? Seriously, do we believe that Schumi was that lacking in confidence? That afraid of a journeyman driver named Irvine? It is a lot to be asked to believe.

There's some unfortunate silliness going on in this thread. The arguments have been endlessly labyrinthine and circular. I've been watching it and it's now time to put it to rest.

Michael WAS favoured by Ferrari. If you or anyone finds that difficult to understand or accept, perhaps you might look at page 37 of TOTAL COMPETITION by Ross Brawn and Adam Parr. Ross would know, possibly even more so than some of the armchair experts here.

Secondly, Ross's philosophy was always to favour the faster driver, so the rusted on Schumacher disciples need no take umbrage; he WAS a fast driver.

Regarding Brawn it was obvious that he targeted Hamilton as the team leader at Mercedes from day 1, hence the team order against Rosberg in Malaysia, however the Mercedes hierarchy soon put an end to that.

OK... so Irvine said it, however, is there any colaboration of his comment. As I said earlier... if it were true, how is that the only time we hear about it is so much later and from only one source (perhaps 1.5 if you want to accept anti.michael.schumacher.com's implication of something unfair by Schumi. Would it not make sense that among all of these knowledgeable fans in this forum, no one apparently than you and an anti-Schumi site knew about it? Why wouldn't there be hell raised to high heaven over it, and what changed and when to the point that Irvine later says the did most of the testing? Which story, if either, are we to believe?

Personally, I have very serious doubts that a Michael Schumacher, who had yet to even win one WDC for Ferrari after several years, would have the power to prevent Irvine from testing the car for a whole year just because he got beat in the first qualifying? Seriously, do we believe that Schumi was that lacking in confidence? That afraid of a journeyman driver named Irvine? It is a lot to be asked to believe.

There's some unfortunate silliness going on in this thread. The arguments have been endlessly labyrinthine and circular. I've been watching it and it's now time to put it to rest.

Michael WAS favoured by Ferrari. If you or anyone finds that difficult to understand or accept, perhaps you might look at page 37 of TOTAL COMPETITION by Ross Brawn and Adam Parr. Ross would know, possibly even more so than some of the armchair experts here.

Secondly, Ross's philosophy was always to favour the faster driver, so the rusted on Schumacher disciples need no take umbrage; he WAS a fast driver.

Thanks for finally jumping in and putting this discussion "to rest". It is so nice to to have that kind of firm leadership here.

Perhaps you have missed the context of the discussion in your push to "end" the discussion... and that is not whether or not Schumi or the "faster driver" was favored, but as to whether Michael Schumacher had the power within the Ferrari organization to prevent Irvine from being able to practice for the entire year because he got beat in the first qualifying test of the season. It is one thing to be favored, it is yet another to basically run the team. Oh, BTW, it may have been Ross' philosophy to favor the faster driver, but Ross did not run the Ferrari team, I believe that di Montezemolo and Todt did that.

I think you will find few of here who are saying that Schumi was not favored, show me the still extremely fast, multiple WDC who is not at least to some degree favored on his team. However, that does not mean that they are contracted #1 (and or #2) drivers, nor does it mean that they can shut down their teammate from testing for an entire season.

And yes, I think most "rusted on Schumacher disciples", as you describe them, realize that "he WAS a fast driver." without your use of the caps, I have yet to see anyone here say that he IS a fast driver.

OK... so Irvine said it, however, is there any colaboration of his comment. As I said earlier... if it were true, how is that the only time we hear about it is so much later and from only one source (perhaps 1.5 if you want to accept anti.michael.schumacher.com's implication of something unfair by Schumi. Would it not make sense that among all of these knowledgeable fans in this forum, no one apparently than you and an anti-Schumi site knew about it? Why wouldn't there be hell raised to high heaven over it, and what changed and when to the point that Irvine later says the did most of the testing? Which story, if either, are we to believe?

Personally, I have very serious doubts that a Michael Schumacher, who had yet to even win one WDC for Ferrari after several years, would have the power to prevent Irvine from testing the car for a whole year just because he got beat in the first qualifying? Seriously, do we believe that Schumi was that lacking in confidence? That afraid of a journeyman driver named Irvine? It is a lot to be asked to believe.

Why would an Austrian (Germanic) site be anti-Schumacher, also so what Irvine said has to be collaborated by Ferrari otherwise it isn't true?A site called anti-michael-schumacher.com, yes, I would say that is anti-schumacher. That is the only other site I could find that seemed to echo what Irvine said, and one would expect them to do so would you not.

Seems you don't hear a lot of things and when you hear them they automatically get dismissed as lies if it first concerns Ferrari and secondly it seems when it concerns Schumacher....*laffin*. Perhaps you should invest in a mirror, poker.. I thought you were painting a "self-portrait" with that post... just substitute Mercedes and Hamilton, and it fits you to a tee. I would however, point out, that virtually NOBODY responding thus far in this thread, pro-Schumi or anti-Schumi, seem to have heard of this story, so I guess I can take solace in my unknowing. I would like to point out also that I was unable to find any other collaborations of the story after looking through 3-4 pages of google searching on the story as you presented it. Would you not think that if it happened they way Irvine says, that it would have been BIG news, really BIG news. Ferrari couldn't have covered it up, so I do indeed find it curious.

You dismiss Irvine as a journeyman driver but would Schumacher have initially seen him like that after being out qualified by him first time out?Would a 2x WDC, a man who had bested Senna several times be that uptight about Irvine??? Indeed, I would suggest that he was not rattled by being out qualified the first race of the season... AND, I repeat that I serious doubt that even Michael Schumacher, yet to have won a WDC with Ferrari would have the kind of clout to "bench" Irvine for the rest of the season testings even in the "honeymoon" period of his first years with the team'. ALSO, you have yet to address the post earlier where it seems as though Irvine said that he did MOST of the testing, most of the tire tests and most of the chassis tests, yet commented about how fast Schumi was when he got in the car. Let me ask you, does it really make sense that Ferrari would give in to Schumacher after one qualifying session?

If Schumacher was so confident why the games with Rosberg, we all know the number game he played with Rosberg from day 1, and then another journeyman driver Johnny Herbert claimed that after his first test with Schumacher he was 0.5s quicker so Schumacher banned him for seeing his telemetry whilst he still looked at Herbert's telemetry, another lie I guess?My god, poker... you really like to pull out the crap don't you. As a fan of one who may be one of the best I have ever seen at playing "games" with other drivers, I would think you would have admired Schumi for doing it. Why is Lewis constantly playing games with drivers? Are you saying that Hamilton lacks confidence as well? So what if Schumi played games with Rosberg.. damn his hide for demanding Rosberg's number... if indeed he did it. a gentlemanly act? Not really, but what is your point? Do you think that is the same as blocking his teammate from testing for the whole year? Because he did one thing, it is proof of the other? Perhaps Schumi did want Herbert banned from looking at his telemetry, I can picture that. BTW, have we seen a request of that nature by any other very recent WDC? Again, it is not sporting if indeed that is the way it went down, but the failure is not all Schumi's, most of it would be on Benetton for allowing it, if they did, as it was their team, not Schumacher's.

poker, if you want to believe every negative thing you can find.. real or not, on Schumacher, then do so.. obviously no one is going to stop you. Schumi was far from an angel, I freely admit it. I do, however, think that there have been times when he was perhaps not as deserving of some of the accusations he seemed to draw to himself, but that is what happens when you get yourself on the "radar" so to speak. And part of the price to be paid is that someone will always bring it up at some point, in some discussion, in the future and won't let it "die". Lewis and Vettel will both have to deal with that for many years to come... tis the way it is.

I'm not one for making countless negative posts about Schumacher, you made a statement about Schumacher not being favoured at Ferrari from day 1 and I remembered an interview with Irvine that said differently, simple as that.

I happened to catch a lot of flack for what I said but fortunately I managed to find the interview to back up what I said.

Regarding comparisons you want to make between Schumacher and Hamilton I don't really want to take that any further in a thread that is about Vettel.

Yeap. You can almost change the bold sentence into "these are the writings of pokerman himself"!

I will endeavor to find the interview, it was a series of interviews he did with I believe an Austrian company, there's about 22 of them so it may take some time.

Edit: I found the interviews, they are called a drink with Eddie Irvine.

Appreciated, even though I don't agree with it. At least you claimed something and did back it up, it is something that people omit often.

Well I must admit there are quite a few things I say I can't back up, I simply can't find the source, but everything I say is simply things I've read or seen, sometimes it's quite frustrating.

I think people may want to see the source for themselves at least in part to exclude the possibility that you may be inferring things from articles you've read. It's at least a possibility, isn't it?

Yes I know that but it's simply not possible to find certain things, at the end of the day what do I personally know from my armchair, if I say a certain person said this in that case that wouldn't be me trying to put a spin on it, it would be a direct quote.

I'm not one for making countless negative posts about Schumacher, you made a statement about Schumacher not being favoured at Ferrari from day 1 and I remembered an interview with Irvine that said differently, simple as that.

I happened to catch a lot of flack for what I said but fortunately I managed to find the interview to back up what I said.

Regarding comparisons you want to make between Schumacher and Hamilton I don't really want to take that any further in a thread that is about Vettel.

Indeed, I did make the following statement:

Quote:

I agree with pretty much what you are saying here, though, I don't think that it was a definitive #1 even for Schumi, I do believe that had one of his teammates come out and taken it to him from the start of the season, that Ferrari would have played things differently. The issue was... there was no one close to Schumi... Rubens was a much better driver than many of today's fans realize, or are wont to admit, it was both his good fortune and bad luck to be teamed with Schumi. Good in that he got to drive one of the top cars, if not the top car, for many years... got to race at or near the front nearly every race and was a critical part of a championship team. Bad luck in that he was not a match for Schumacher, but then neither was any one else.

To your credit, you did find a statement by Irvine that would challenge that thinking. However, I still have a very tough time believing that being out-qualified at the first race would result in Schmacher not only trying to, but having the power to stop Irvine from practicing for the rest of the year, and to be honest, I have seen nothing other than that anti-michael-schumacher.com site to suggest it did happen. Do you not find it odd that after Irvine made that comment, we did not see every F1 media source raising a huge stink over their Schumi/Ferrari's actions. How could Ferrari have swept it all under the rug so completely that it is most difficult to not be able to find collaboration of Irvine's claim in a google search?

As far as the Lewis mention in this thread about Vettel... Hamilton had been discussed earlier and not just by me. A thread titled "Vettel & Number 2s" was bound to bring in references to other drivers less it appear that Vettel is the only driver to have "2s".

One more question for you, poker. Do YOU really believe that Michael Schumacher had Irvine blocked from testing for the entire year because he was bested in qualifying in the first race of the season? Serious question.

and if you do, how does that explain Irvine's comments about he (Irvine) having been done most of the testing, tire testing, and chassis testing. Admittedly, it could have been in different years, but wouldn't that be a rather dramatic turn around?

I'm not one for making countless negative posts about Schumacher, you made a statement about Schumacher not being favoured at Ferrari from day 1 and I remembered an interview with Irvine that said differently, simple as that.

I happened to catch a lot of flack for what I said but fortunately I managed to find the interview to back up what I said.

Regarding comparisons you want to make between Schumacher and Hamilton I don't really want to take that any further in a thread that is about Vettel.

Indeed, I did make the following statement:

Quote:

I agree with pretty much what you are saying here, though, I don't think that it was a definitive #1 even for Schumi, I do believe that had one of his teammates come out and taken it to him from the start of the season, that Ferrari would have played things differently. The issue was... there was no one close to Schumi... Rubens was a much better driver than many of today's fans realize, or are wont to admit, it was both his good fortune and bad luck to be teamed with Schumi. Good in that he got to drive one of the top cars, if not the top car, for many years... got to race at or near the front nearly every race and was a critical part of a championship team. Bad luck in that he was not a match for Schumacher, but then neither was any one else.

To your credit, you did find a statement by Irvine that would challenge that thinking. However, I still have a very tough time believing that being out-qualified at the first race would result in Schmacher not only trying to, but having the power to stop Irvine from practicing for the rest of the year, and to be honest, I have seen nothing other than that anti-michael-schumacher.com site to suggest it did happen. Do you not find it odd that after Irvine made that comment, we did not see every F1 media source raising a huge stink over their Schumi/Ferrari's actions. How could Ferrari have swept it all under the rug so completely that it is most difficult to not be able to find collaboration of Irvine's claim in a google search?

As far as the Lewis mention in this thread about Vettel... Hamilton had been discussed earlier and not just by me. A thread titled "Vettel & Number 2s" was bound to bring in references to other drivers less it appear that Vettel is the only driver to have "2s".

One more question for you, poker. Do YOU really believe that Michael Schumacher had Irvine blocked from testing for the entire year because he was bested in qualifying in the first race of the season? Serious question.

and if you do, how does that explain Irvine's comments about he (Irvine) having been done most of the testing, tire testing, and chassis testing. Admittedly, it could have been in different years, but wouldn't that be a rather dramatic turn around?

Obviously I'm going from what Irvine said but at some point Schumacher had to realise that Irvine was no threat to him so subsequently he would have no trouble in Irvine testing in particular again if you believe Irvine, that he was better in testing than Schumacher so was able to better improve the car.

Did Schumacher have that kind of power why not?

Was there not talk of some kind of power struggle in 2005 between LDM and Schumacher were LDM believed that he had too much influence within the team which partly resulted in the signing of Kimi?

You are going with what Irvine says. So why do you think that there were not tons of media outrage over this? This would have been like cake and the icing too for the media, yet finding supporting articles og what i would call a rather dispicable action on the part of both Schumi and Ferrari is very difficult. If it is true, I'd be very disappointed in both...unless there were some reasoning we are not seeing.

To answer you other question, I can think of NO reason Schumi, or any other drjver would have that kind of power unless, like Dan Gurney, they owned the team and even the they would be dumb to use it that way.

Lastly, if there were concens about a power struggle between Luca & Schumi, you'd have to admit that the situation was quite a bit different in 2005 than in 1997.... Schumi coming off 5 consecutive WDCs in Ferraris. That could embolden a person if that were the cause of any rift.

You are going with what Irvine says. So why do you think that there were not tons of media outrage over this? This would have been like cake and the icing too for the media, yet finding supporting articles og what i would call a rather dispicable action on the part of both Schumi and Ferrari is very difficult. If it is true, I'd be very disappointed in both...unless there were some reasoning we are not seeing.

To answer you other question, I can think of NO reason Schumi, or any other drjver would have that kind of power unless, like Dan Gurney, they owned the team and even the they would be dumb to use it that way.

Lastly, if there were concens about a power struggle between Luca & Schumi, you'd have to admit that the situation was quite a bit different in 2005 than in 1997.... Schumi coming off 5 consecutive WDCs in Ferraris. That could embolden a person if that were the cause of any rift.

I don't think it would have been a big story at the time. That kind of behaviour was not unusual back then when being number 1 bought you a hell of a lot more benefit than being number 1 now.

People miss use the term "number 2" IMO. Nobody on the current grid is a Number 2 in the same way that Herbert, Barrichello or Irvine were to Schumacher or Berger was to Senna or Patrese was to Mansell.

It wasn't unusual for the No.1 to pick and chose their testing programs.

That being said I doubt this actually happened. I think Irvine is exaggerating.

People miss use the term "number 2" IMO. Nobody on the current grid is a Number 2 in the same way that Herbert, Barrichello or Irvine were to Schumacher or Berger was to Senna or Patrese was to Mansell.

Or maybe there can be degrees of #2, and it doesn't have to be all or nothing?

Personally, I feel calling a driver a #2 is valid any time there's a clear divide in priority between the drivers. If it can only apply to a useless peon who's not allowed to make any impact on his teammate, I really think there should be a clearer term for that.